This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

Care to address the fact that the current warming trend began 150 years before the Industrial Revolution?

Care to addresss the fact that no one knows why the Little Ice Age ended?

Care to address the fact that since no one knows why the Little Ice Age ended they can't possibly be certain to understand the factors driving current climate trends, since the initiating factors terminating the Little Ice Age may still be playing a role?

Care to address the fact that no one knows why the Little Ice Age started?

Care to address the fact that current AGW theories are focused on cherry-picking historical data to show desired (as opposed to actual) trends, and this fraud reaches into the heart of the IPCC, which included the Medieval Warm Period in it's original report but re-wrote the inconvenient portion of the graph to emphasize the true scariness of the Hockey Stick?

Care to address the fact that the current cooling trend violates the predictions of AGW theory, and since AGW is a theory, it's controlled by the facts, not the other way around?

Care to address the fact that climate changes without help from little old us?

Care to address the fact that there's no "hockey stick"?

Care to address the fact that the ice caps are not melting?

Care to address the fact that polar bears are not going extinct?

Care to address the fact the planet was significantly warmer in historical times and yet we're still here?

Care to address the fact that H2O serves in a negative feedback manner to regulate global temperatures in balance with solar irradiation?

Care to tell us what historical epoch has the most optimal climate ever?

Care to tell us why the IPCC decided that the 1950's were bestest and any deviation from that is just bad. I say, buh-buh-bad!

You can point to incidents of global warming.

That's nice. I'm not denying the globe's annual mean temperature shifts hither and yon. It's an inherently chaotic system regulated with limiting feedback loops. It got warmer in the 90's, it's gotten colder since. Big whoop-ti-do, that. Show the conclusive evidence that car exhaust and cow farts are able to dominate the global atmospheric heat balance.

Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

Care to address the fact that the current warming trend began 150 years before the Industrial Revolution?

Cite that. And regardless of the facts 150 years ago, there is general consensus that the current warming trend, which started about 50 years ago, is caused by an increase in the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

Care to addresss the fact that no one knows why the Little Ice Age ended?

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age]Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] Just because you don't know doesn't mean no one knows.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

Care to address the fact that since no one knows why the Little Ice Age ended they can't possibly be certain to understand the factors driving current climate trends, since the initiating factors terminating the Little Ice Age may still be playing a role?

Look at the link.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

Care to address the fact that no one knows why the Little Ice Age started?

Again, link.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

Care to address the fact that current AGW theories are focused on cherry-picking historical data to show desired (as opposed to actual) trends, and this fraud reaches into the heart of the IPCC, which included the Medieval Warm Period in it's original report but re-wrote the inconvenient portion of the graph to emphasize the true scariness of the Hockey Stick?

I'm not arguing with global warming theorists. I'm arguing the facts of the case. Those facts indicate a much more moderate view of climate change then global warmists say, but more serious then you probably will argue.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

Care to address the fact that the current cooling trend violates the predictions of AGW theory, and since AGW is a theory, it's controlled by the facts, not the other way around?

Again, I'm arguing the facts, which don't indicate necessarily what global warmists say is happening. And a more appropriate term is climate change.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

Care to address the fact that climate changes without help from little old us?

I don't think you are stupid enough to think that just because climate can change without anthropogenic sources means that it is changing without outside input.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

Care to address the fact that there's no "hockey stick"?

Again, I never argued there was a hockey stick.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

Care to address the fact that the ice caps are not melting?

Actually, the glaciers at the North Pole are melting, but because these are already floating, their weight is already displaced across the oceans, so honestly, who cares if they melt? The only impact might be on animals, and I'm not arguing for or against that.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

Care to address the fact that polar bears are not going extinct?

I do no care, and I will not argue for or against, because I have not researched this topic enough.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

Care to address the fact the planet was significantly warmer in historical times and yet we're still here?

Explain what you mean by "historical times."

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

Care to address the fact that H2O serves in a negative feedback manner to regulate global temperatures in balance with solar irradiation?

Assuming that there is nothing else effecting H20 concentrations in our atmosphere, that would be true. However, there is a lot more to climate then solar events.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

Care to tell us what historical epoch has the most optimal climate ever?

In regards to what?

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

Care to tell us why the IPCC decided that the 1950's were bestest and any deviation from that is just bad. I say, buh-buh-bad!

I'm not arguing for the IPCC, I'm arguing for myself, with facts which are essentially stipulations.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

That's nice. I'm not denying the globe's annual mean temperature shifts hither and yon. It's an inherently chaotic system regulated with limiting feedback loops. It got warmer in the 90's, it's gotten colder since. Big whoop-ti-do, that. Show the conclusive evidence that car exhaust and cow farts are able to dominate the global atmospheric heat balance.

If you had even looked over what I've stated maybe three times now, you would realize that I have never argued immediate, and devastating climate change. The data I have provided is the basis for my argument, which is that the CO2 increase will result in more evaporation, which will eventually lead to higher mean temperatures (albeit very slowly) and therefore more extreme/powerful weather events. I have argued a gradual shift, a reasonable change, and nothing but facts.

Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

Gee Whiz the pseudo scientists among us that listen to idiots like Rush Limbaugh experience below average temps and more snow in the eastern half of the continental United States -- while the rest of the world is experiencing more record high temps, and poof it's the end of Global warming! Duhhhhhhhhh!

NOAA: Global Average Surface Temperatures in January are 4th Warmest on Record

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released today (12 February 2010) data indicating that January 2010 was the fourth warmest on record. Land surface temperatures were the highest on record in the Southern Hemisphere; and global ocean surface temperatures were the second warmest on record.

Global Highlights

Among the highlights (emphasis added):

* "The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January 2010 was 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F). This is the fourth warmest January on record.
* The global land surface temperature for January 2010 was 0.83°C (1.49°F) above the 20th century average of 2.8°C (37.0°F)—the twelfth warmest January on record. Land areas in the Southern Hemisphere were the warmest on record for January. In the Northern Hemisphere, which has much more land, comparatively, land surface temperatures were 18th warmest on record.
* The worldwide ocean surface temperature for January 2010 was the second warmest—behind 1998—on record for January, 0.52°C (0.94°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.5°F). This can be partially attributed to the persistence of El Niño across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center (CPC), El Niño is expected to continue through the Northern Hemisphere spring 2010. "

Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

Kinda silly to claim the warming trend started 150 years after it started, isn't it?

Originally Posted by repeter

And regardless of the facts 150 years ago, there is general consensus that the current warming trend, which started about 50 years ago, is caused by an increase in the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere.

You mean the consensus of people pushing the failed AGW theory? That's mighty convenient for them, isn't it?

Since the warming started before the Industrial Revolution it's more than disingenuous to claim the IR was the cause, is it not?

When I state "no one knows", it's what I meant. One can assign probabities to various theories....and there's arguments over what the real cause for both beginning and end are, just like the precipitate causes for commencement and termination of global ice ages is uncertain.

Originally Posted by repeter

I'm not arguing with global warming theorists.

Yeah, we know.

You're arguing for them.

Originally Posted by repeter

I'm arguing the facts of the case.

The facts of the case are that there's no definitive evidence of human impact on global thermal balance.

Originally Posted by repeter

Those facts indicate a much more moderate view of climate change then global warmists say, but more serious then you probably will argue.

Again, I'm arguing the facts, which don't indicate necessarily what global warmists say is happening. And a more appropriate term is climate change.

No.

The appropriate term is global warming.

Unless you're going to start arguing that man's contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is going to lead to colder earth, the issue is global warming, not generic "climate change". Just because the IPCC wanted to get in front of the reality to hide their hoax doesn't mean I'm required to play along.

If the threat is global warming, then discuss global warming. If you feel global cooling is the issue, as most of the "consensus" robots who now preach AGW one were, then discuss global cooling.

However, any human addition of CO2 can have only one effect on global climate, warming, and it's deceitful to claim anything else or to be "generic" about the matter.

People who aren't afraid of facts don't use "climate change", they speak to the issue they're concerned about.

Originally Posted by repeter

I don't think you are stupid enough to think that just because climate can change without anthropogenic sources means that it is changing without outside input.

"Outside input"...hmmm....the Sun is "outside"....you think maybe that star has something to do with earth's thermal balance? You might be onto something. And, of course I know you're aware that the Earth radiates energy to the universe in proportion to the fourth power of the temperature difference between the Earth and the Universe. Maybe the Sun isn't getting hotter, the whole Universe is, and that would explain the recent temperature increases.

The Universe is outside too, and clearly we need to get the government to do something about the warming Universe.

Actually, the glaciers at the North Pole are melting, but because these are already floating, their weight is already displaced across the oceans, so honestly, who cares if they melt? The only impact might be on animals, and I'm not arguing for or against that.

I didn't realize Greenland wasn't an island. Thanks for letting us know.

Originally Posted by repeter

Explain what you mean by "historical times."

Watch Mel Brooks' "History of the World, Part I" sometime.

Originally Posted by repeter

Assuming that there is nothing else effecting H20 concentrations in our atmosphere, that would be true. However, there is a lot more to climate then solar events.

You think maybe the continents have moved that much in the last 350 years? Are they accelerating? Should I wear a seat belt while riding North America?

Maybe the precession of the poles is happening faster now?

Maybe the ocean currents are still adjusting from the impact of the end of the last Ice Age, so everything is in flux. Well, unless the Indians melted the Laurentian Ice Sheet, it's pretty hard to attribute the end of the Ice Age to the Indians.

There's a lot to climate. A lot of really HUGE factors. CO2 isn't one of them. CO2 is a minor component.

Originally Posted by repeter

I'm not arguing for the IPCC, I'm arguing for myself, with facts which are essentially stipulations.

I don't stipulate your facts. And I certainly don't stipulate the conclusions you're drawing from them.

Originally Posted by repeter

You apparently need a math lesson. There was, that is to say before the Industrial Revolution, 300 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. Now, there are about 380 parts per million.

And CO2 comprises 0.1% of the green house gases in the atmosphere.

So a change from 300 to 380 is a +26% change in 0.1% of the green house gases in the atmosphere, so CO2 now comprises umm...0.1% of the GHG in the atmosphere. Big change, that, from 0.1% to 0.1%.

Originally Posted by repeter

If you had even looked over what I've stated maybe three times now, you would realize that I have never argued immediate, and devastating climate change. I have argued a gradual shift towards a climate that would, IMO, be less favorable for humans because weather will become more extreme.

Yes, you've made the argument with out any facts to back it up. As the poles warm, the thermal engine driving the convection cells slows down and the weather becomes less severe, not more. Things become nicer and more predictable.

But the reality is that there's no statistically significant change in the weather patterns.

Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

Kinda silly to claim the warming trend started 150 years after it started, isn't it?

For all I know, you are pulling every bit of that out of your ass. So cite it or I will assume that.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

You mean the consensus of people pushing the failed AGW theory? That's mighty convenient for them, isn't it?

Since the warming started before the Industrial Revolution it's more than disingenuous to claim the IR was the cause, is it not?

If that was the case, it still wouldn't be as disingenuous as claiming something without any citations/sources to back it up. So you want to cite that now?

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

When I state "no one knows", it's what I meant. One can assign probabities to various theories....and there's arguments over what the real cause for both beginning and end are, just like the precipitate causes for commencement and termination of global ice ages is uncertain.

You've never heard of reasonable doubt have you? Because it applies in this case, so you should look it up. There are disputes as to when the Little Ice Age started exactly, and there is some dispute as to when it ended. As for the reasons of why, I defer to my previous source.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

Yeah, we know.
You're arguing for them.

The facts are pretty close to them, but admittedly not on them.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

The facts of the case are that there's no definitive evidence of human impact on global thermal balance.

Based upon the logic of the case, which is that CO2 does increase global temperature and does lead to greater amounts of evaporation and that CO2 has increased somewhat since the Industrial Revolution, we can infer that there is climate change, it's just extremely apparent, and is, in a normal person's view, going too slowly to be of consequence. In terms of planet Earth, however, the rate of climate change is quite fast.

In the United States, that would be a bigger concern. In relatively undeveloped countries, the former would be a bigger problem.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

No.

The appropriate term is global warming.

That's the wrong term. Some areas might actually cool down as the Earth gets warmer on average. Therefore, it is climate change, because not everything is getting warmer.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

Unless you're going to start arguing that man's contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is going to lead to colder earth, the issue is global warming, not generic "climate change". Just because the IPCC wanted to get in front of the reality to hide their hoax doesn't mean I'm required to play along.

You're acting as if I'm the IPCC. I'm not, and my views aren't that of the IPCC either. If you want to argue with them,go right on ahead, but address the views I give when you argue with me.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

If the threat is global warming, then discuss global warming. If you feel global cooling is the issue, as most of the "consensus" robots who now preach AGW one were, then discuss global cooling.

Thats a bit ridiculous. Your logic in this is, "if it isn't global warming, then it has to be global cooling." That logic is flawed.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

However, any human addition of CO2 can have only one effect on global climate, warming, and it's deceitful to claim anything else or to be "generic" about the matter.

Again, not every part of Earth will get warmer even if the world's average temperature increases. Meteorology still applies.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

"Outside input"...hmmm....the Sun is "outside"....you think maybe that star has something to do with earth's thermal balance? You might be onto something. And, of course I know you're aware that the Earth radiates energy to the universe in proportion to the fourth power of the temperature difference between the Earth and the Universe. Maybe the Sun isn't getting hotter, the whole Universe is, and that would explain the recent temperature increases.

You can start a thread in the conspiracy theory section for that, otherwise keep it out of here, it's wasting everyone's time.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

So? The fraudulent Hockey Stick is central to AGW.
Oh.
The Hockey Stick that held up the AGW tent is broken, isn't it?
Something about falsified data, cherry picking, and deterministic data manipulation....

If only I was arguing the AGW standpoit

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

I didn't realize Greenland wasn't an island. Thanks for letting us know.

If you read my statement, you would have seen I stated ice that is floating is already displaced, therefore that ice melting has no effect on sea levels. And on top of that, I personally don't feel that the amount of ice melting in Greenland can significantly affect the world's sea levels, maybe a few inches.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

You think maybe the continents have moved that much in the last 350 years? Are they accelerating? Should I wear a seat belt while riding North America?

Maybe the precession of the poles is happening faster now?

Maybe the ocean currents are still adjusting from the impact of the end of the last Ice Age, so everything is in flux. Well, unless the Indians melted the Laurentian Ice Sheet, it's pretty hard to attribute the end of the Ice Age to the Indians.

There's a lot to climate. A lot of really HUGE factors. CO2 isn't one of them. CO2 is a minor component.

Thats the problem with your arguement. You are taking the direct effects of CO2 into account, and you aren't thinking of what CO2 effects in terms of evaporation. The problem with too much of any greenhouse gas, by anthropogenic sources, is that it increases the rate of evaporation. Water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas then CO2, and if water vapor increases, global temperatures on average will increase, and there will be more radical weather as well.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

I don't stipulate your facts. And I certainly don't stipulate the conclusions you're drawing from them.

So you are arguing that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, that water vapor is not a greenhouse gas, that the amount of CO2 has not increased since the Industrial Revolution, and you are also arguing that increased temperature does not increase rate of evaporation? If you want to argue even one of those, I think this discussion is over...

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

And CO2 comprises 0.1% of the green house gases in the atmosphere.
So a change from 300 to 380 is a +26% change in 0.1% of the green house gases in the atmosphere, so CO2 now comprises umm...0.1% of the GHG in the atmosphere. Big change, that, from 0.1% to 0.1%.

Again, you need to think beyond the direct consequences, and think in terms of logic trains.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

Yes, you've made the argument with out any facts to back it up. As the poles warm, the thermal engine driving the convection cells slows down and the weather becomes less severe, not more. Things become nicer and more predictable.

But the reality is that there's no statistically significant change in the weather patterns.

Ever heard of the ITCZ? That's where all the storms form. Sunlight is most direct at this area, at 23.5 Degrees (Earth's tilt on its axis). Because of this, it has the hottest surface water temperatures. If this area becomes warmer, there is more wind, more evaporation, and higher temperatures. These variables in conjunction are the equation for the perfect storm; an overall increase in the amount of storms, and the power of those storms.

Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

hree big companies quit an influential lobbying group that had focused on shaping climate-change legislation, in the latest sign that support for an ambitious bill is melting away.

Several companies are quitting an influential lobbying group focusing in on legislation, despite the administratin's push to use the budget to pass greenhouse gas legistlation. WSJ's Grainne McCarthy reports in the News Hub.

Oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. said Tuesday they won't renew their membership in the three-year-old U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a broad business-environmental coalition that had been instrumental in building support in Washington for capping emissions of greenhouse gases.

The move comes as debate over climate change intensifies and concerns mount about the cost of capping greenhouse-gas emissions.

On a range of issues, from climate change to health care, skepticism is growing in Washington that Congress will pass any major legislation in a contentious election year in which Republicans are expected to gain seats. For companies, the shifting winds have reduced pressure to find common ground, leading them to pursue their own, sometimes conflicting interests.